Snapdeal's decision comes as another jolt to the 50-year old actor who had been removed from the Incredible India campaign by the tourism ministry almost a month ago.

The decision of Snapdel does not come as a surprise, as the e-commerce brand became the worst victim of public outburst for Aamir's comments on rising intolerance in the country in November last year. Aamir had said quoting his wife Kiran Rao, that she had suggested leaving India because of rising intolerance.

Many might criticise Snapdeal for not standing behind its brand ambassador, when he needed their support the most. But the bitter fact is, what other choice did Aamir leave for Snapdeal? In business, financial losses often tend to outweigh ideology, morality and loyalty.

No brand today, Snapdeal included can afford to engulf itself in a controversy. Bad media publicity can hurt a brand big time. Snapdeal has already tasted the bitter medicine in its crudest form in November last year, as soon as Aamir had opened his mouth. Twitter overflowed with hashtags #bootoutsnapdeal and #appwapsi, and lakhs of Indians uninstalling the Snapdeal Android mobile application.

Business decision cannot be driven by personal choice or favoritism, so it makes perfect sense in what Snapdeal did.

In business, no relationship is permanent. There is no denying the fact that Snapdeal rose to prominence after Aamir became their brand ambassador. It was his brand value as a star which helped Snapdeal counter stiff competition from rival brands like Flipkart. But then, it was good as long as it lasted. Aamir had become a burden for the brand, which was reportedly paying him a hefty annual endorsement fee between Rs 15 to 20 crore.

Besides, e-commerce might look like a lucrative business to a layman, but in reality it is not. An article published in Times of India reported that according to the Hong Kong stock exchange, Snapdeal reported losses of Rs 1,350 crore in March last year, as the company spent extravagantly (Rs 150 crore a month) on discounts and marketing expenses. So, it was also logical financially to cut the flab.

It is entirely true that a brand has nothing to do with the personal life of a brand ambassador or what he does in public. But, if something like this happens, and begins to hurt the brand, the decision has to be taken.

Editorial NOTE: This article is categorized under
Opinion Section. The views expressed in this article are solely
those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of
merinews.com. In case you have a opposing view, please click
here to share the same in the comments section.